<p>what about PASSAGE 1 (lion) Passage 2 (We killing all that could eat us)</p>
<p>What is the relationship? I put that passage 2 delved on a cliche of the first...</p>
<p>thequestionmark</p>
<p>the first one i said we could be potential prey or something</p>
<p>last one i put a</p>
<p>From Direct Hits: " a veiled reference."</p>
<p>I said it expanded on an insight made in the first. What would you say the cliche was in the first that passage 2 delved into?</p>
<p>thequestionmark: i put that passage 2 expanded on passage 1 or something to that extent</p>
<p>instead of innuendo, i put presumption..b/c i thought presumption was like an assumption..and it said in the sentence that it wasn't based on fact..?</p>
<p>yeahhh i put expanded on alsooo for the passage 2 and passage 1
i don't think it was insight..is this referreing to the lion question? i can't remember</p>
<p>The cliche I was thinking of was the idea that we could eaten by animals.</p>
<p>What kind of insight were YOU thinking of?</p>
<p>Yeah so did i, passage 2 expanded upon the fear of lions/cats that guy had.</p>
<p>^^That's not really a cliche, and the insight was the whole top of the food chain thing.</p>
<p>well, the reason why I discarded insight..</p>
<p>was because the overall "insight" of passage one was the magnificence of lions specifically...</p>
<p>yeah I agree with wombatsoup, that was my reasoning. the first passage briefly mentioned that the lion made him remember that he was not the top of the food chain, and the second passage expanded on how animals higher on the food chain than us "sober us" etc.</p>
<p>Humans can be prey?</p>
<p>Yea, it helps to think that it extended on an insight that wasn't too prominent in the first passage.</p>
<p>Didn't even finish any of the section, skipped lots of them, like at least 6 on each one.</p>
<p>hmm...yes something about humans can be prey</p>
<p>and I said passage two had a theory contradicting the first passage?
The first passage was big on how scared he was of the lion because it owned (not rented) everything.</p>
<p>Then the second passage said that actually, most of the man-eating animals were dying out, so they don't actually own us anymore?</p>
<p>THe word "theory" bothered me a lot, though. Perhaps this idea of "owning, not renting" was the cliche the collegeboard was gunning for?</p>
<p>what was the experimental?</p>
<p>wait the natural history museum was the experimental? can someone confirm that?</p>
<p>Yes, that one about the lions (passage relationship) was the answer choice that said something like "B _____ insight _____ A" (I think it was choice A)</p>
<p>the one with the dinosaurs?</p>